Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Warren]

And to think that only yesterday I was looking at this thread - now 26 pages long - and waiting for a hiatus so that I could close it and open part 2.

So I return to the Boards today and find another two pages! Raging debate! Diana! Evita! Foreigners out! Gauntlets thrown! Plus apologies, politeness, civility, self-edited posts,
and a lot of good humour.

Ain't the British Forums grand?

W

 

[Margrethe II]

And to think that only yesterday I was looking at this thread - now 26 pages long - and waiting for a hiatus so that I could close it and open part 2.

So I return to the Boards today and find another two pages! Raging debate! Diana! Evita! Foreigners out! Gauntlets thrown! Plus apologies, politeness, civility, self-edited posts,
and a lot of good humour.

Ain't the British Forums grand?

W

So very well put Warren... so very well put


"MII"

 

[tiaraprin]

Beatrix fan: Now that Charles is 'freed' from Diana, he is not much more popular. And not just because of the whole Camilla story. He is often described as arrogant, remote, out of touch, self-centered and uncharismatic (and did gave much display of these traits of character IMO). So I don't think his star would have shinned brightly with or without Di at his side.
Also, Charles is 50 (or more?), he is not going to learn anything now, nor he is going to change. The Charles we see today will be the King the Brits will have (or not...). It's like Marmite: Love it or Hate it (not literally obviously).

Prince Jonnhy: humm... Evita over Diana? How interesting... A woman who won her way to power by sleeping around with moneyed men (and it's not the sleeping around part which annoy me), the wife of a blood thirsty dictator, who used to used large part of her 'charity money' to buy tons of furs (such a necessity in cold Argentina don't you think?) and expensive jewels, who welcomed Nazi in Argentina after the collapse of Germany? Whatever... to each its one.

Branchq: knowing (and respecting) your views on Diana, I admire your post. It is great IMO.

Bravo to you Idriel!!!!! This "Diana Nut" applauds you!

 

[Idriel]

Bravo to you Idriel!!!!! This "Diana Nut" applauds you!

I endeavour to please, Tiaraprin!

So very well put Warren... so very well put

Indeed, indeed.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

I'm British and I know when I'm not going to win. So I'm backing away now!

(Sound of Reversing Lorry)

 

[Margrethe II]

I'm British and I know when I'm not going to win. So I'm backing away now!

(Sound of Reversing Lorry)

You forgot to mention humourous as well BeatrixFan

"MII"

 

[caroline mathilda]

I'm British and I know when I'm not going to win. So I'm backing away now!

(Sound of Reversing Lorry)

No, No, No!!! Stay and Play!!

CM

 

[Elspeth]

I'm British and I know when I'm not going to win. So I'm backing away now!

(Sound of Reversing Lorry)

Lorry? On this forum? My dear, how irredeemably middle class.

Surely you meant "reversing coach and four" or "reversing Range Rover" or something a little more in keeping with the image.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

I do apologise! It will of course be my Bently that reverses. Failing that, it'll be Hudson in the Rolls.

 

[ysbel]

You guys are fun! I live in Manhattan so all I can do is tell the taxi driver to do a quick reverse! (which they do on occasion all the way up Park Avenue!)

 

[Mapple]

But I think the Counsellors of State are a subset of the Privy Council, right, Elspeth?

The Counsellors of State are more of a 'subset of a chairperson' of the Privy Council--they act as substitutes to the monarch, which incudes presiding at the Privy Council meetings when the monarch is unable to do it.

 

[tiaraprin]

Remember this is a global society and we all take an interest in what is going on in other countries. As is human nature, people express all sorts of opinions on issues which might not directly concern them. Ig, "everybody" has an opinion on political issues in the States even those which might not have international impact.

I speak to many from the United Kingdom who constantly express to me that they are not enamoured of the President of my country. I am not enamoured either, but they express their views to me quite vehemently. It has nothing to do with them either--they do not vote here. I would say the score is even. Everyone has an opinion on just about everything and that is that.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re;

I speak to many from the United Kingdom who constantly express to me that they are not enamoured of the President of my country.

I think thats a little different considering the circumstances. Mr Bush has alot to answer for here in the UK.

 

[caroline mathilda]

Everyone has an opinion on just about everything...

And THAT dear friends is what makes these Royal discussion boards so very delightful!

Caroline Mathilda

 

[Elspeth]

Well, without getting into a political discussion, I think there's truth on both sides of this one. The US president certainly does have more influence on the UK than Charles and Camilla do on the US, but that isn't the only reason why people in the UK express opinions about him. I'm sure people in the UK also express opinions about politicians in countries that don't really affect the UK directly, because news these days is global so we all know more about what's going on worldwide than we used to.

 

[ysbel]

Back to the question of the thread, I think Charles will succeed his mother and if he does it in five years or so Camilla will be queen.

I hope the Coronation ceremony doesn't get cut down too much. I want to see St. Edwards crown, the Scepter with Cullinan diamond, the Sword of State, the Coronation Ring, the armills, the spurs, the Royal orb, the robes and St. Edwards chair. I think the coronation ceremony will get cut down by the time William becomes king and I want one last time to see how its really done.

 

[ysbel]

The Counsellors of State are more of a 'subset of a chairperson' of the Privy Council--they act as substitutes to the monarch, which incudes presiding at the Privy Council meetings when the monarch is unable to do it.

Ah thanks, so who are the Counsellors of States? The Queen, Prince of Wales, Prince Philip?

 

[Saragli]

I dont want the coronation ceremony to be cut down either or changed that much. It has been pracitcly the same for the past 1000 years. It would be a real loss to lose it. I hope they dont change the acension ceremonies either. I have to see the coronation as it has always been for the past 1000 at least once in my life. I hope it doesnt change or disappear, whats the point of having a monarchy if we cant celebrate it and have its grand traditions. Maybe the monarchies are set to collapse soon.

 

[tiaraprin]

I speak to many from the United Kingdom who constantly express to me that they are not enamoured of the President of my country.

I think thats a little different considering the circumstances. Mr Bush has alot to answer for here in the UK.

If we follow your line of reasoning, you should be taking it up with Mr. Blair. We Americans vote for our president, and you vote for your Prime Minister. Mr Blair is the one who is leading Great Britain down the path it is going. He doesn't have to listen to our President. The person who has a lot to answer for in Great Britain is Mr. Blair. In the USA, it is President Bush.

 

[Elspeth]

Ah thanks, so who are the Counsellors of States? The Queen, Prince of Wales, Prince Philip?

The Queen isn't one, because the Counsellors of State act for the Queen when she's out of the country or incapacitated in some way. At present they're Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry, and Prince Andrew.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page344.asp

 

[grecka]

I have a question. Were the queen to be in a situation analagous to the situation George III encountered in the early part of the 19th century (i.e. mental illness, some other illness or other thing which impaired her mental or physical faculties enough to prevent her from adequately fulfilling her duties), is there still a law on the books under which Prince Charles could become regent? I know that such a move was put into practice only once before in recent British history (the regency of George, Prince of Wales- who later became George IV- during the so-called "madness of King George).

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, Prince Charles would become regent.

During George VI's reign before Princess Elizabeth turned 18, the Duke of Gloucester (father of the present Duke and brother closest in age to the King) was Regent Designate. I think that Princess Margaret was Regent Designate for Prince Charles in the early part of the Queen's reign but was replaced by Prince Philip at some point, but the need disappeared when Charles turned 18. Charles would be Regent if the Queen was permanently unable to carry out her duties, whereas the Counsellors of State would take over if she was only temporarily incapacitated. I'm not sure if new legislation would be needed to activate a regency, though. I expect some of our more learned constitutional scholars will be able to supply an answer.

 

[Mapple]

Yes, Prince Charles would become regent.

During George VI's reign before Princess Elizabeth turned 18, the Duke of Gloucester (father of the present Duke and brother closest in age to the King) was Regent Designate. I think that Princess Margaret was Regent Designate for Prince Charles in the early part of the Queen's reign but was replaced by Prince Philip at some point, but the need disappeared when Charles turned 18. Charles would be Regent if the Queen was permanently unable to carry out her duties, whereas the Counsellors of State would take over if she was only temporarily incapacitated. I'm not sure if new legislation would be needed to activate a regency, though. I expect some of our more learned constitutional scholars will be able to supply an answer.

I'm not sure about Princess Margaret, but the Duke of Edinburgh was named as a regent-designate in the Regency Act 1953: 'His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, if living, shall be the Regent unless, or (as the case may be) until, there is a child or grandchild of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness who can under the provisions of the said Act be the Regent.'

That Act is still in force, and now it allows the Prince of Wales to assume regency were the Queen incapacitated. I'm pretty sure, though, that if Charles were to become a regent, a new law to this effect would be passed by the UK Parliament.

 

[ysbel]

I'm not sure about Princess Margaret, but the Duke of Edinburgh was named as a regent-designate in the Regency Act 1953: 'His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, if living, shall be the Regent unless, or (as the case may be) until, there is a child or grandchild of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness who can under the provisions of the said Act be the Regent.'

That Act is still in force, and now it allows the Prince of Wales to assume regency were the Queen incapacitated. I'm pretty sure, though, that if Charles were to become a regent, a new law to this effect would be passed by the UK Parliament.

I'm surprised a new act wasn't passed when Charles came of age.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I'm surprised a new act wasn't passed when Charles came of age.

I suppose the fact that the original act states something about there being a child or grandchild of the Queen and Duke being able to take over the duties of regent means that there is no need to have a new act during the reign of the present Queen as the situation is that there are now 8 people who qualify under that definition - Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Princess Anne, Peter Philips and Zara Philips are all old enough to take on the role of regent and within a year Princess Beatrice will also qualify.

I would expect a new Act at some time in the next reign.

It reminds me of my father's will - written on 3rd Feb., 1952 the day after he got married. He has never changed it in any way and it covers every contingency (ihncluding the possibility of children on said marriage - there were two) - as does this act.

 

[Warren]

Regency Procedure Questions

I'm surprised a new act wasn't passed when Charles came of age.

I would think there are two aspects to a Regency: the Regency Act where who can be Regent is defined (thanks Mapple); and there would have to be an "instrument" which legally grants the Regent the powers of a defacto Monarch.

What is the procedure for declaring the Monarch "incapacitated"? Is this action the trigger for an automatic state of "Regency", or does this require another Act of Parliament?
How many stages are there from assessing and determining an incapacity to the formal declaration of a "Prince Regent"?
.

 

[ysbel]

I would think there are two aspects to a Regency: the Regency Act where who can be Regent is defined (thanks Mapple); and there would have to be an "instrument" which legally grants the Regent the powers of a defacto Monarch.

What is the procedure for declaring the Monarch "incapacitated"? Is this action the trigger for an automatic state of "Regency", or does this require another Act of Parliament?
How many stages are there from assessing and determining an incapacity to the formal declaration of a "Prince Regent"?
.

Good question Warren. And I guess the other question, who out of all the possible Regents would be Regent. (I know it should be Charles, but given how the act is written how will it actually be determined that it is Charles?)

I hope people don't think this topic is too morbid. No disrespect to the Queen is intended. I wish Her Majesty good health until she goes.

The monarchy though is quite unique that some of its most defining moments come at a death or an incapacitation and sometimes its interesting to ponder those what-ifs.

 

[Mapple]

I would think there are two aspects to a Regency: the Regency Act where who can be Regent is defined (thanks Mapple); and there would have to be an "instrument" which legally grants the Regent the powers of a defacto Monarch.

What is the procedure for declaring the Monarch "incapacitated"? Is this action the trigger for an automatic state of "Regency", or does this require another Act of Parliament?
How many stages are there from assessing and determining an incapacity to the formal declaration of a "Prince Regent"?
.

From the Regency Act 1937: 'If the following persons or any three or more of them, that is to say, the wife or husband of the Sovereign, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Master of the Rolls, declare in writing that they are satisfied by evidence which shall include the evidence of physicians that the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions or that they are satisfied by evidence that the Sovereign is for some definite cause not available for the performance of those functions, then, until it is declared in like manner that His Majesty has so far recovered His health as to warrant His resumption of the royal functions or has become available for the performance thereof, as the case may be, those functions shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent.'

Thus, surprisingly, a separate Act of Parliament is not required for establishing a regency--a declaration of three eminent persons suffices.

Good question Warren. And I guess the other question, who out of all the possible Regents would be Regent. (I know it should be Charles, but given how the act is written how will it actually be determined that it is Charles?)

...

Again I'm quoting the Regency Act 1937: '

1. If a Regency becomes necessary under this Act, the Regent shall be that person who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, is next in the line of succession to the Crown.
2. A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom, or is a person who would, under section two of the Act of Settlement, be incapable of inheriting, possessing, and enjoying the Crown; and section three of the Act of Settlement shall apply in the case of a Regent as it applies in the case of a Sovereign.'

So, an earlier law establishes Charles as a regent-designate.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

The person who has a lot to answer for in Great Britain is Mr. Blair.

Oh don't worry - he's getting a good grilling too!

As to Counsellors of State, Princess Alexandra served as one during the sixties I believe.

I think we might see a kind of regency. It always make me wonder why these people think that the Queen will outlive Prince Charles - she is nearly 80 and he is in his late 50s - why on earth would he pop off so early?

The Queen has done a marvellous job and I think a regency would ease Charles into the role of King.

 

[Elspeth]

That declaration is sort of interesting because hasn't Tony Blair abolished the post of Lord Chancellor? If the Queen outlives the Duke of Edinburgh, and in the absence of a Lord Chancellor, to say nothing about Blair's tinkering with the House of Lords such that one of these days there may not be a Lord Chief Justice either, we may run out of enough eminent people to make this declaration.

I see the Prime Minister isn't on the list. Interesting omission.